If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. -- Benjamin Franklin

Monday, January 10, 2011

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

I don't know what's worse, Jennifer Rubin's hackery bemoaning the politicization of Saturday's shooting while blaming the left for the entire ordeal for the crime of even bringing up the idea that rhetoric might have been taken seriously...

We saw the same phenomenon following the Oklahoma City bombing and the Holocaust museum shooting when MSNBC hosts and liberal pundits blamed the incidents on radio talk show hosts. These exercises in blame-mongering inevitably run aground when inconvenient details muddle the "talk show hosts did it" mantra (e.g. Did radio talk show hosts tell the Holocaust museum shooter to target the conservative Weekly Standard offices?) The same is true in this incident. You can almost hear the disappointment from the left that he was a pothead rather than a Tea Partyer.

It is as noxious to associate Saturday's shooting with conservative campaign rhetoric, even that which is over-the-top, as it would be to claim that violence is the doing of those who labeled Tea Partyers un-American (as Democratic leaders did during the health-care debate) or of those who accuse senators of being unpatriotic (as a liberal newspaper columnist recently did). If a lunatic attacks a businessman, are we to blame Obama for vilifying the Chamber of Commerce? Was the attack on an Arkansas recruiting station the fault of anti-war liberal Democrats? Of course not. The impulse to blame political opponents for tragedy and to convert human misery into a political weapon -- both of which were played out on Twitter and the Internet by liberals as diverse as Paul Krugman, Jane Fonda, and the Daily Kos crowd -- is deeply regrettable. But it has unfortunately become par for the course.

Josh Trevino, a co-founder of Red State and a partner at consulting firm Rogue Strategic Services, said he had grown used to seeing conservatives under fire after similar incidents in the past, citing Mayor Bloomberg's speculation after an attempted Times Square bombing that the terrorist might have been motivated by the passage of health-care reform.

"It's happened before, it will happen again." he said. He added that he believed such claims were in part a coordinated political attack.

"There's a reason Democrats and the left do what they do in trying to blame Tea Parties and the right—they're out of ammo, so to speak. They were fairly comprehensively defeated in November," he said. "I wouldn't say it's a strategic reaction, but it's certainly a tactical reaction to these disadvantages."

Right-wing radio host Jon Justice, who is on KQTH FM 104.1 in Arizona, has called for Dupnik's resignation and taken issue with the sheriff's singling-out of talk radio.
"To say, as Dupnik did, that comments made on the airwaves essentially motivated this person to commit this crime is exactly what he blamed talk radio of doing, inciting through pure rhetoric," Justice said in a statement to Tucson Weekly. "It was complete misuse of his power and he owes the media in town, TV and radio, an apology for his horrible comments in the middle of such a tragic day. He should step down immediately from his position as Pima County Sheriff."

TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains.

"The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this," he wrote. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to "blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh" and "The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term."

"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words," he wrote.

And you will continue to hear this in the day, weeks, and months ahead. If you criticize the Tea Party, you are only contributing to the climate of victimization of these poor, voiceless, powerless souls. How dare you say anything bad about them. You're not allowed. And if you do, God help you. The narrative is already being written, the facts are already being made concrete, the familiar themes are already being blasted out into the airwaves again.

When this happens again, the process will be repeated.

It is possible to say "enough of this violent rhetoric". I said it before this massacre happened. It's even more valid now.

46 comments:

It is possible to say "enough of this violent rhetoric". I said it before this massacre happened.

You never said any such thing when a particular Democrat used violent rhetoric in the following statements:

"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed."

"A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy."

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face!"

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“

Do you know who made these violent statements? Do you think the Democrat who said them should be held to the same standards? Or, as I suspect, you dismiss it because it was said by Democrat? How do you know these statements didn't play a role in the Tuscon shooting?

How about the rhetoric of Mark Penn, hoping for people to die so that Obama and Democrats could take political advantage of the situation (which is playing out right now, thanks to you)? How about Moulitsas who put crosshairs on Gifford's district during the primary last year? How about Harry Mitchell who put crosshairs on J.D. Hayworth during the 2006 election? How about yourself who mimicked the violent "hostage" rhetoric of the Democrat who made the above statements?

When do you call out the violent rhetoric of your own side, which could have as much to do with the shooting as any you say came from the right?

A few times? Are you mad? Obama made everyone of those statements I listed. Hell, you followed along with the "hostage" rhetoric repeatedly. What about Mark Penn, hoping people would die so that Obama and the Democrats could use it to political advantage? Do you know when Penn said that? Right after the last election. How could Republicans have erased a line that wasn't there based on Democrats' own words?

And you still haven't proved that any violent rhetoric by either the right or the left was a factor in these shootings. But you are happy to keep blaming the right in its entirety.

For two assholes who yak about free speech, my opinion that I believe the climate of violent rhetoric from the right especially contributed to this is what I believe. Do I have proof? No. Does it make sense? Yes.

I'm allowed to have it. You're allowed to disagree with it.

What do you plan to do about it? Seek me out for some "Second Amendment remedies?"

I'm guessing if today's conservatives were better men and women, they'd feel less like doing the "duck and cover" boogie and handle the eliminationist rhetoric that seems so second nature to them these days.

I always did wonder why Limbaugh never decided to try waterboarding when Muller and Hitchens actually did. Must be that double Limbaugh standard. He's for manly waterboarding unless it's him. Then not so much.

Palin needs protection? Maybe when those gun carry tards she loves to work up figure out she's been duping them out of their money for years now.

You two morons have been peddling your false equivalency bullshit for two days now.

And for the same amount of time, you've peddled your false guilt by association, without evidence.

Because random assholes on the left have just as much influence as Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Steve King or Michele Bachmann.

Like random asshole Markos Moulitsas, who put a target on Gifford's district during the primary? You're not going to tell me Moulitsas doesn't have a ton of influence on Democrats, are you?

When the language of violent, eliminationist rhetoric becomes par for the course for the Democrats, you have an argument.

ZCP linked to a post showing a slew of violent rhetoric that is par for the course for Democrats. The argument is there; you're just ignoring it because it doesn't fit in with your ideology. I provided a bunch of violent rhetoric from Barack Obama at the top of this comment thread. He's the President of the United States, someone with more influence, and political power, than Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Steve King or Michele Bachmann.

By the way, Obama's "if they bring a knife, bring a gun" comment came out just before 2008 GOP convention, the one where liberals attempted a terrorist attack. If I remember correctly, Obama wasn't one bit contrite about his potential role in that.

How about both sides stop assigning blame here and remember a nine year old girl and five other people were murdered by a lunatic who was obsessed with killing a woman? I don't give a damn which side is at fault here, and neither does 99% of America. I want it to stop.

McCloud, nobody on the right is blaming the left for this. Zandar has convicted conservatives of being guilty of being accessories to a horrendous murder. He uses innuendo, political ideology, guilt by association (which is not valid) and zero evidence (he admits to this above) to make his point. All we conservatives here are doing is defending ourselves from this false charge, as is our right. I want this blame stopped as well. But Zandar won't stop.

Both sides are trying to score political points here in this thread. That includes you Steve AR and Zandar and everyone else here. For God's sakes six people are dead. Get a clue. No wonder Americans despise politics these days. Neither one of you is right and you both are wrong. Nothing is to be gained from this. Nothing. None of you are parents of small children. I have three of them, the oldest is eight. Politics doesn't matter right now.

Don't throw that moral authority crap around here. I have an 8-year grandchild and a bunch of young nieces and nephews. I don't know about you, but falsely accusing people of murder is high on my list of reprehensible activities that I would not want those children to do. I would also teach them to properly defend themselves from such false accusations and that they have a right to do so.

I do not believe that shutting up and pretending that the United States does not have a very serious problem with high profile people talking incessantly about eliminating other citizens for merely disagreeing with said high profile person is the responsible thing to do.

Given the increased level of hate groups and violence from these groups it would seem that shutting up and pretending is a problem.

So you finally and freely admit that you have convicted Palin and all conservatives of being accessories to murder without any evidence to prove it, based solely on your politics, and because you are trying to use the crime for your own political advantage. Yes, I understand it's your opinion, and you have every right to make it; I don't dispute that at all. And I'm not going to go crazy like ZCP has.

Now that what I've feared has finally happened, you go berserk when someone mentions the patently obvious.

Again, you don't know why this happened, whether Loughner was influenced by anyone, whether left or right (it's come out that he's a 9/11 Truther; that pretty much rules out that he's any kind of conservative). So when you accuse me of murder, and do so because you hate conservatives and it's politically expedient, I'm not going to take it well. And I will verbally defend myself vigorously. My apologies if what is my right disturbs you, but too bad.

And by the way, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik knows his office has had run ins with Loughner before (here and here). Apparently, Loughner made death threats against someone, not Giffords, and Dupnik admits he knew about it. And yet all he's done is blame the same people you blame. While I'm not ready to say Dupnik is irresponsible in the performance of his job as a crime preventer, this is troubling. What it also means is that it's possible that the inaction of Sheriff Dupnik allowed Loughner's record to remain clean, which allowed him to purchase a gun.

If everyone's guilty of it then nobody's guilty. I won't let that happen.

What? You, yourself are going to deny others their right to free speech? Maybe on this blog, but then don't tell me how much you respect the Constitution. Besides, where did Palin or conservatives say they wanted to see people murdered or called out their supporters to murder liberal politicians? I've seen more Democrats say they wanted to see people dead so that Obama and Democrats can use it to their advantage. Who is using "eliminationist" garbage?

You know who is probably guilty of murder, pending a trial? Loughner. Not Palin, not conservatives, not you, not me, not Obama, not what you term hateful rhetoric, not your own hateful rhetoric, not politics, none of it.

And you freely admit the language and climate of the last three years are conducive to violence.

I did? Where? I said:

Again, you don't know why this happened, whether Loughner was influenced by anyone, whether left or right (it's come out that he's a 9/11 Truther; that pretty much rules out that he's any kind of conservative).

And:

You know who is probably guilty of murder, pending a trial? Loughner. Not Palin, not conservatives, not you, not me, not Obama, not what you term hateful rhetoric, not your own hateful rhetoric, not politics, none of it.

I didn't admit to what you suggest. At all. In fact and for the record, I made it a point to say just the opposite, that what you call violent rhetoric (and what I call vigorous free speech), had nothing to do with Loughner committing murder. You have every right to your opinions, but you don't have a right to misrepresent what I said.

After 9/11, I worked in a news room, and I heard a lot of crap about 'liberals are treasonous bastards' from the right, from the elites and from the guys on the street.

I saw letters to the editor suggesting that people asking for peace be punched repeatedly until they agree with the puncher.

I saw bumper stickers for 'liberal hunting licenses'.

I saw celeb after celeb writing books and making appearances explaining that liberals are vermin, if not in so many words, then for all other intents.

One of our reporters was from Pakistan, and he was berated not long after 9/11 to 'go home!', when he was born and raised here.

Neiwert has a list of threats and violent incidents from right wing militias for the last 2 years, and it's a pretty long list. He can come up with a list of incendiary statements from a number of politicians and conservative figures, I'm sure.

I keep hearing that we need to tone the language down from the commentary of TV, that the nation is divided and we just need to calm down. And I have to ask 'who are you talking to? Me? I've wanted that for years. Talk to the other guy for a change. He's the fucker with the bat.'

You can't expect 30 years of hate to have no effect. This guy is the latest in a long string of guys, yet again targeting a Democrat. He lived in this hate swamp his entire life, so that's the lens he saw the world through, magnified by his own madness.

Hell if I know what to do about it. Hell if I know what could be done. I suspect it's just going to fester more and more until what?

What I've seen is a good three years of this behavior comparing Democrats to enemies of the state and of humanity, and then one of them gets shot in the head.

Right, because in your mind and based solely on your ideology, the two are linked. Sure. Mayor Bloomberg stupidly implied that the Undiebomber of Christmas, 2009 committed his act due to the health care debate. Next you'll Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda committed their terrorist acts on 9/11/01 because they were unhappy with the outcome of Bush v. Gore and Bush's first "tax cuts for the rich" so that you can blame conservatives for that too, right?

Here is a pathetic piece in one of your favorite websites blaming the right for Kennedy's assassination back in 1963. You know what is missing from Boehlert's piece? The name of the guy who killed JFK. If you do an Alt+Edit+Find, you won't find Oswald's name until the comments section. You remember Lee Harvey Oswald, right? He was the guy who killed JFK. He was also very much like Loughner, an evil piece of shit. And Oswald was no right winger; he was an ardent Marxist, a lefty, and he tried to murder a Bircher several months before killing JFK. But Boehlert deliberately leaves out these facts, choosing to blame the right because it fits the narrative. Even after nearly 40 years of facts have proven who killed JFK, Boehlert would rather use anything but the facts in order to put out a piece that supports his ideology. Funny, you're doing the same thing. No wonder Media Matters is one of your favorite websites.

JFK was a Democrat targeted for murder, so was Gabby Giffords. As ab pointed out up there we've lived in this climate of reactionary anti-liberal, anti-democrat, anti-government fear since not only 9/11 but since the Clinton years.

And once again those consequences have reared their ugly, brutal head out of the swamp.

And once again those consequences have reared their ugly, brutal head out of the swamp.

Just so we're straight, you don't care what the facts are, you are going to let your ideology drive your conclusions. (By the way, I read your most recent post from this morning. It's full of the same ideological drivel.)

Addendum to my previous comment: The JFK assassination was almost 50 years ago, not almost 40. But the fact remains that Media Matters ignores these facts. Willfully.

Also, I can state categorically that Oswald was an evil man, not insane. It has yet to be determined if Loughner is evil or insane. Which means that if he is insane, Loughner won't be convicted of the murders he committed, but would (and should) reside in an insane asylum for the rest of his life, as does John Hinckley.

Never said you should shut up about, for fuck's sakes you've dragged this argument on for days now.

But you're accusing me of things I didn't actually say. You can say there's a climate of rhetoric in the air, and purposefully so, that may have contributed to what happened Saturday.

You can say Sarah Palin did something that in hindsight looks very bad, and that if she had come out and said "In light of the terrible events of Saturday, I'm taking this down because it might have been misconstrued" I would have respected that greatly. She did not.

That's what I've said and will continue to say. You're the one saying I'm falsely accusing Palin of murder. You're the one going completely off the deep end here.

You have the right to your opinion. But I don't have to agree with you and I do not.

You can say Sarah Palin did something that in hindsight looks very bad, and that if she had come out and said "In light of the terrible events of Saturday, I'm taking this down because it might have been misconstrued"

Democrat Joe Manchin put out an ad during the last election showing him literally shooting at a target representing the cap-and-trade bill he opposed. It helped him win the election. While he stated he may not release such an ad in the future, he defended it well:

"The act of a deranged madman who commits a horrific act should not and cannot be confused with a metaphor about a piece of legislation."

That's the same with Palin's map. Neither she or Manchin or anyone other than the murderer bears any responsibility for this horrible crime. And the more that's being learned about Loughner, the more that is becoming a fact, a fact you can't ignore.

Contributors

ZVTS Mobile Version

About ZVTS

With Republicans controlling the House and Senate and President Obama coming to the end of his second term in the White House, there's still plenty of Stupid to fight on all sides with a crumbling global economy imperiling the world, two seemingly endless wars, a federal government nobody trusts or believes in, global climate change putting us on the brink of destruction and a Village media that barely does its job on even the best day.

Needless to say there's a lot of Stupid out there still coming from both political parties, when we need solutions.

Zandar's Tip Jar

Subscribe To ZVTS

Podcast Versus The Stupid!

It's ZVTS, now in a 60-minute podcast!
Get your Zandar and Bon every Saturday and Wednesday!
Also, click on the iTunes button to put the show on
your iTunes podcast list and take us with you!
Or, check out the episode archive page!